Posts by se99tp

Western Sovietologists were preoccupied with problems in the area of military, economics, intelligence and finance. Almost nobody assessed the Soviet threat as a competition of fundamentally two different world-views. One based on the Biblical values and the other on purely atheistic. In addition to that Sovietologists would treat Soviet monster almost as a parallel state to the Western entities.

Is it really a need for any evidence? Well just look at, what we can call for the use in this discussion, “the Talbott school” (for instance Mr. Cyrus Vance practiced his ideas ignoring all of painful consequences of this madness).. The truth is that until the Soviet dissidents appeared in the West including Solzhenitsyn, Siniavsky (who discussed the issue of an attempt to create “a new man” by Leninists) , Amalrik etc. this (discussed by us) aspect of the nature of the Soviet regime was almost never taken seriously by the Western policy-makers. Look how these Sovietologists were annoyed with Reagan, who called Soviets an Evil Empire. Obviously he not only called as such, but also explained in details why this is appropriate name for this type of political regime posing as legitimate alternative to the Western democratic system. I really do not know anyone who could analyze the Homo-Marxian system from the Judeo-Christian point of view. I think the Biblical element was missing in the analysis of the Soviet system which from its birth was intended on the destruction of Christianity and replacing it with their form of religion...

Turning now to our discussion about Islam, I would add that the West is losing this war because the religious aspect is not being taken seriously.

Many analysts especially Sovietologists did not notice or acknowledged the fact that the war of ideas focused on two different views of human nature. The further consequence of that conflict was different approach to truth and generally to ethical problems. I would agree with you that Islamist or even Islam is driven by certain attractive (and false) narrative that West was not able to counter until today. I would not agree though that Islam appeals to reason (it is not to say that is reasonable or logical but rather contrary) as much as so-called scientific Marxism. I would stress that this certain narrative drives Muslims to this violent (terrorist) jihad as it motivated Islamic conquerors, for instance Islamic hordes of Ottomans (etc), for centuries.

One of Cold War bestsellers appears to be relevant today. Until President Reagan decided to challenge policies of detente, West was on the loosing side of the confrontation. It is not to say that Cold War ended, but rather to emphasize how important it was to focus on the right aspect of it. This book appears to provide important lessons for those who are interested in deeper dimension of the Cold War struggle. I think it is worthy to read this short review. I would recommend it.

Thank you very much. I am trying to read German and Austrian press regularly but I did not come across such report. The newspaper from Salzburg published this information based on Austrian ORF tv.
I will read your post with interest. Thank you.

I was told once by senior security agency official that actually Hillary Clinton could deal with ISIS. If she would have been able to respond the way she wanted the tragedy of Benghazi could have been avoided. But Donald Trump may not have understanding and be willing to listen to his advisors. I do not know whether this is true. What do you think?

Yes, I agree. This is consequence of US Administration’s decision regarding Iraq. I would add also other states which withdrew their armies from Iraq prematurely. What’s more nobody seems to even think (in Europe or elsewhere beyond USA) about possible intervention to destroy ISIS simultaneously in the Middle East and North Africa...

If you believe Russia Wiki - good luck! No, they did not return. He told about it for Radio Svoboda. Yes, Mr. Navalny page is good for some information but it may not be sufficient for everyone.

Everyone can challenge usage of Prominent. He was prominent since his work and opinions are source for many Western experts in Russia. He was considered an expert on the Kremlin regime. He was often correct in his predictions regarding nominations in Kremlin. I do not see any reason to challenge accuracy of the description of his figure on Russian political scene as a prominent.

Thank you for critical reading of the article. I am still convinced it provides the best information you can find in English.

There will be a problem with establishing of a real cause of his death unless someone saw something or heard. It is not a murder like in a case of Mrs Politkovskaya... I think the regime has learnt its lesson.